Tyrannosaurus rex vs. Giganotosaurus carolinii

[theropod]

1. I didn't take Broly as a reference, the second is Hartman's response, in agreement with him. Sorry, I didn't make that clear enough. And despite his reputation many cannot keep themselves from perpetuating, broly clearly has a point on this issue, one that can actually easily be proven by statistics.
3. My point still stands. There are definitely T. rex specimens (listed above) far outsized by MUCPv-ch1, those don't have to include Carnegi to exist.

Here: "I think that Stan and Carnegie are still possibly heavier than the Giganotosaurus type specimen."
third page of the linked "here": scotthartman.deviantart.com/journal/Who-was-heavier-North-vs-South-redux-383643529?offset=50#comments

That sentence in the second-to-last paragraph appears to pop up in every single discussion we have. And I was not trying to convince you, I was justifying my opinion; that's appropriate when you make statements contradicting me.

My very substantiated opinion: Vastly different sample sizes create strong bias in favour of the animal with the bigger sample when comparing the animals known maximum sizes.

[Grey]

The point of Hartman is still clear, there's no sample with enough relevance to claim one species was bigger than the other or not. It is just as possible that the future Giganotosaurus individuals found would be smaller than most Tyrannosaurus individuals...or larger. The extant sample indicate nothing at this. Hartman said that's a comparison between specimens and he didn't suggest any idea of one being bigger as a species so move on. If you want to make real your 9 tonnes Giganotosaurus, do it I cannot care less.

[theropod]

"my 9tonne Giganotosaurus"?
What the **** are you talking about? I think Mucpv-95 weighed closer to 8t!

I expressed explicitely that we should not speculate on how much bigger specimens may have existed in both of them (but of course, you don't pay attention to that-otherwise you may have to admit to yourself the much-despised theropod isn't a fanboy...), but resort to a more objective means of comparison, which I already elaborated and which is luckily undeniably the most objective.

Based on what we have (which is, the biggest in two being at least as big as the biggest and the smallest much bigger than the smallest in >36) the two possibilities you mention are not equally probable. And that is no speculation.
How often do I have to explain this simple logic; If we assume MUCPv-95, as the bigger of the two Giganotosaurs, is compatible with the upper bound of known T. rex specimens (as I elaborated, that's a specimen with a much lower probability of course, so it isn't), then why isn't MUCPv-Ch1, as the smaller one, compatible with the smallest known T. rex (again, it isn't of course)? And since that's where your logic brings us, what does it tell us? We all know the answer; the largest may be roughly comparable, the smallest Giganotosaurus however is at least 2-3t heavier than the smallest T. rex. So? Obviously (and this is where the comparison starts to make sense again!), Giganotosaurus is the larger animal based on this comparison, isn't it? It's size range simply is the higher one, meaning in all likelyhood it's average size is too.

You have to understand the problem you have with what I'm doing actually applies to what you are doing much more, it's speculative and relies on improbable assumptions.

That's why I already offered you two alternatives, either use size ranges, or use the maxima but at least be less cautious by assuming the, either way indicated, density variation that's just as relevant as the body width difference (which will definitely be more objective than taking not the slightest liberty with a 1/2-probability specimen as compared to a 1/20-probability one).
I don't think it is even necessary to rely on the former, at least for correctly stating which animal is the bigger one, if we do the latter.

I can respect if someone prefers not to take comparison onto this level and says we can only compare specimens, but then you must not equate this with comparison of species, which you simply cannot make in that case, and abstine from saying anything about the respective sizes of the species.

Some are imo too cautious by simply stating they were the same size with the given data. Some others have been too sensationalistic about the specimens of Giganotosaurus or those of T. rex for that matter.

Apart from that, Hartman has on several occasions made points quite in agreement with comparisons of just maximum sizes being inaccurate.

you should also check out this, I basically excavated it: theworldofanimals.proboards.com/post/4488/thread

[gigadino96]

I think that the difference bewteen T.rex and Giganotosaurus in weigth isn't superior to ~ 0,5 t...both "Sue" and MUPCv-95 were sub-equal in size. Btw, Grey, you must know that theropod has concerned these estimate:

MUPCv-ch1: 6,5-6,7 t
"Sue": 7,4 t
MUPCv-95: 8,1-8,5 t

9 t isn't impossible for Giganotosaurus. Try to scaling Acrocanthosaurus (2009) to Giganotosaurus size. the result is of about 9 t.

[Fragillimus335]

Sept 7, 2013 4:01:38 GMT 5 theropod said:

"my 9tonne Giganotosaurus"?
What the **** are you talking about? I think Mucpv-95 weighed ~8t!

I expressed explicitely that we should not speculate on how much bigger specimens may have existed in both of them, but resort to a more objective means of comparison, which I already elaborated and which is luckily undeniably the most objective.

Based on what we have (which is, the biggest in two being at least as big as and the smallest much bigger than the biggest and smallest in >36) the two possibilities you mention are not equally probable. And that is no speculation.
You have to understand the problem you have with what I'm doing actually applies to what you are doing much more, it's speculative and relies on improbable assumptions.

That's why I already offered you two alternatives, either use size ranges, or use the maxima but at least be less cautious by assuming the, either way indicated, density variation that's just as relevant as the body width difference. I don't think it is even necessary to rely on the former, at least for correctly stating which animal is the bigger one, if we do the latter.

Yes, some scientists are imo too cautious by stating they were the same size with the given data. Some others have been too sensationalistic about the specimens of Giganotosaurus, especially in the case of the holotype.

you should also check out this, I basically excavated it: theworldofanimals.proboards.com/post/4488/thread

Grey freaks out when people disagree with him sometimes.

The fact of the matter is that biological systems are not perfect, but unless anyone on this forum claims to have invalidated the principle of statistical mathematics, then there is a far greater chance of finding larger Gignotosaurus specimens than the equivalent giant specimen of Tyrannosaurus. A 1,500% greater chance to be precise. This statement is not a guarantee, but thinking anything else is greater and unnecessary speculation. It's that simple.

Another thing we could do would be to average the weights of all known adult specimens of each species. The result for Giganotosaurus is 7.5 tons, and although I don't have all the numbers for tyrannosaurus, I would assume a number that is a decent bit lower.

[theropod]

That's exactly my point. Now the problem is to find consistent and reliable weight estimates, which we perhaps never will. But you can gauge the average weights relatively well by looking at several specimens and determining how large each one approximately is in comparison to others.

[Fragillimus335]

Sept 14, 2013 17:17:27 GMT 5 theropod said:

That's exactly my point. Now the problem is to find consistent and reliable weight estimates, which we perhaps never will. But you can gauge the average weights relatively well by looking at several specimens and determining how large each one approximately is in comparison to others.

And considering 7.5 tons is a perfectly reasonable weight for Sue, I doubt the average for Tyrannosaurus would be over 7 tons. So judging from existing specimens, Giganotosaurus seems larger on average than Tyrannosaurus...

[gigadino96]

Sept 14, 2013 21:31:28 GMT 5 Fragillimus335 said:

Sept 14, 2013 17:17:27 GMT 5 theropod said:

That's exactly my point. Now the problem is to find consistent and reliable weight estimates, which we perhaps never will. But you can gauge the average weights relatively well by looking at several specimens and determining how large each one approximately is in comparison to others.

And considering 7.5 tons is a perfectly reasonable weight for Sue, I doubt the average for Tyrannosaurus would be over 7 tons. So judging from existing specimens, Giganotosaurus seems larger on average than Tyrannosaurus...

The problem is that we have only 2 Giganotosaurus specimens (actually 3, but the third is only a tooth), against over 30 T.rex individuals.

[theropod]

Actually there are several more teeth referred to the species, the problem with those is, they are more or less useless for making size estimates due to the (ontogenetic) variation along the toothrow and could belong to various size-classes, they cannot even be reliably assigned beyond family level...

We are stuck with the two osteologically known individuals.

[creature386]

That's according to the theropoddatabase, Carrano et al. (2012) ignored them and just listed two specimen.

[theropod]

Not that it would change much:

Valais and Apesteguia, 2001. Dientes asignables a Giganontosaurus (Carcharodontososauria, Theropoda) provenientens de “La Buitera”, Formacion Candeleros, provincia de Rio Negro: Ameghiniana, v. 38, n. 4, supplement, p. 6R-7R.
Several teeth ought to be described in this paper. Coria and Currie (2006, Mapusaurus roseae description) mention one more, so does Calvo (1999) in Proceedings of the Second Gondwanan Dinosaur Symposium (http://www.proyectodino.com.ar/pdfs/900-0093.pdf). The latter was actually the first remain found of Giganotosaurus.

The last link is definitely worth reading, it contains a few additional photographs of the holotype (and thus already does nearly as much as the description paper itself. Damn, when will people realize you cannot squeeze an important discovery onto a few pages and that pictures are also important?). I originally searched for it thinking "Well, there is so little information published that you should literally look at every single tooth you can find...", but it turned out there's a whole lot more in there. There are also remains of far bigger sauropods in that formation than Andesaurus or Limaysaurus, eg. one whose proximal half of a rib measures 175cm and one with 90cm wide footprints (which at least means it's definitely a big bigger than the Giraffatitan holotype).

I think Carrano et al. may be disregarding undiagnostic materials (which isolated Carcharodontosaur teeth qualify as since they are not diagnostic below Carcharodontosauria-level and merely assigned based on size and geological/geographical setting).

[Life]

IMO, both can kill each other.

[Dakotaraptor]

The skeleton models were certainly in different quality, i mean from both papers (2009's and 2011's). There is possible that it could have an effect on the density (very high for MOR 555, pretty low for Sue).

[theropod]

That's true but it does not explain why even when accounting for the degree others such as stan got specifically lighter sue is still a good deal more pneumatic than it or Carnosaurs. Anyway, that's not all (I elaborated that earlier on the giant theropod thread). The pneumaticity of the fossils is in support of sue being particularly pneumatic (see Brochu, 2003).

[wiffle]

I don't think this fight is worth debating over fine points.

While not a mismatch, Giganotosaurus boasts nearly no advantage over Tyrannosaurus. There's bite gape and that's about it. If either had half a ton or so on the other, it likely wouldn't even matter as bulk and bodily strength are mostly irrelevant in these fights.